PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Policy: As commander in chief how can he end a DECLARED war?




ApathyCured
12-20-2011, 04:31 PM
I don't toally understand the war powers section of the presidency:
Lets say that RP wins the election and is president. Then shortly after congress declares war on say Iran (for stupid reasons that RP doesnt like) is he not bound, as Commander in chief, to run the affairs of the war? Or could he essentially have the troops go there and then, using his war powers, tell them to turn around and come home before the war really starts??

Icymudpuppy
12-20-2011, 04:44 PM
Technically, a declaration of war is legislation like any other legislation. It has to go through the President and the Supreme Court. It can be vetoed.

If Paul vetoes the declaration he can veto it because it does not clarify the conditions of victory such as surrender, elimination of leadership, etc, or simply because he disagrees with the premise. In the case of a clarification of victory conditions, the congress can rewrite the declaration to specify the conditions of victory in which case the law can be signed, and it goes to the courts. In the case of disagreeing with the premise for war, he should have a very good case regarding why he vetoed such as "Diplomatic options have not been attempted, or exhausted", "Intelligence is questionable", or something similar. If the congress is divided with a regular majority, a veto would be pretty safe. If congress has a super majority, the president can expect an override of his veto, and some pretty serious backlash against his other legislation.

sratiug
12-20-2011, 04:46 PM
Congress hasn't declared war since WWII. Not going to happen. They don't like to be responsible for anything.

Occam's Banana
12-20-2011, 04:57 PM
Congress hasn't declared war since WWII. Not going to happen. They don't like to be responsible for anything.
That^^.
None of them want to be held responsible for getting us into a war (if it turns out to be unpopular).
None of them want to be held responsible for trying to keep us out of war (if it turns out to be popular).
Spineless bastards.

Zippyjuan
12-21-2011, 12:01 PM
If there was a serious enough threat for both the House and Senate to pass a war resolution I would think that it would also be serious enough that Ron Paul would likely agree. If it was a controversial war then agreement in congress would be difficult to get and Ron would not go along. I don't see the initial question here as a very likely scenario. Particularly with the divisive way congress is behaving these days. They have a very difficult time agreeing on much of anything lately.

Aratus
12-21-2011, 12:17 PM
as a triumphant potus you declare victory and demobilize.

the Civil War and WWII eventually ended precisely like that.

cjm
12-21-2011, 01:39 PM
as a triumphant potus you declare victory and demobilize.

the Civil War and WWII eventually ended precisely like that.

WWII ended with peace treaties which I assume were ratified by the US Senate.

The "Civil War" was declared by Lincoln, not the Congress. He characterized it as a rebellion within the US, not a secession of several States and subsequent international war. Andrew Johnson later ended the war with a similar (executive branch) declaration.